William Keltner is accused of swapping barcodes on a TV at Walmart. He allegedly tried to buy the device for $2.

A 52-year-old man was arrested at an Abilene, Texas, Walmart after he allegedly swapped barcodes on a television and tried to buy the device for about $2.

William Keltner allegedly removed a barcode tag from a hanger worth only $1.17 and placed it on the $228 television. According to KTXS, Kelter was detained in an office until police arrived.

Keltner is charged with state-jail felony theft, destruction of evidence, and misdemeanor destruction of writing. His theft charge was enhanced due to prior theft convictions.

The Houston Press compared the foiled scheme to one of the "cunning plans" from the BBC Comedy "Blackadder," but strangely this isn't the first time someone has been accused of swapping barcodes to get a lower price on an item.

Earlier this year, a Silicon Valley executive was charged with four felony counts of burglary for allegedly affixing false barcodes to packages of LEGOs in area Target stores.

NBC Bay Area reported that the executive, Thomas Langenbach, was formally charged with switching tickets on seven boxes of LEGOs worth about $1,000 total, although police said he had sold 2,100 pilfered LEGO sets on eBay, garnering $30,000 in profit.

Seriously do people not know the barcode is tied to information about the product and not just indication of the price? This is not the 1980's.

You only have to fool the cashier for 10 seconds. If it scans as something generic or close to what you're buying, you'd get away with it. But if it reads as a Hanger when its a TV, and its a $2 TV, obviously they are going to catch on.

If you've paid attention to the numerous "create a barcode" tricks going about the last few years, you'll find that a lot of the bigger stores, this isn't the case for some reason.

Yea, not a matter of paying attention. I've not read anything about it. Your assertion assumes a behaviorial deficit on my part. I actually work two jobs and don't have time to sit around. But now this makes sense.